I guess this cuts out in app purchases from Marvel. iBooks would be interesting if they had a better reading selection but they don't. As a long time Mac user the fanaticism of some of you nuts jobs are hilarious. Not everything Apple does is good and they have realized that in time as was the case with the use of Flash conversion tools.

Looking over this thread, I've come to the conclusion that tech blog participants are like little girls screaming on a chair at the sight of a mouse.
Nothing in the story confirms any potential restrictions on Amazon or Kindle books. That's pure speculation on the author's part, and its simply amplified in the comments by the 'Apple is Evil' crowd.

Looking over this thread, I've come to the conclusion that tech blog participants are like little girls screaming on a chair at the sight of a mouse.
Nothing in the story confirms any potential restrictions on Amazon or Kindle books. That's pure speculation on the author's part, and its simply amplified in the comments by the 'Apple is Evil' crowd.

The screaming is from the Apple defenders.

Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.

to believe the opposite we would need to believe that Sony doesnt understand in-app purchasing, and cant redirect a link to an external website.

None of this should is new. The Times got it wrong. Apple allows apps to use content purchased elsewhere, they just don't allow apps to have in-app purchases that don't go through Apple - it's always been this way. All Sony has to do is place a link to Safari and they'll be all set. This is why the Kindle app is still there.

Funny how the fodder of the anti-Apple trolls is always misinformation.

No really. Content will be where consumers are willing to spend money. So far, Android customers have not shown willingness to spend. So Content providers will indeed put up with Apple's 30% demand to stay in App Store.

As for your ridiculus comment about not wanting to pay Apple 30% for doing things with devices you already paid for, why are you paying cable/satellite/Netflix etc. to watch programs on that TV you already paid for? Why are you paying ATT/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile/others to use that Phone you already paid for? Why are you buying gas to use that car you already paid for?

This is a poor analogy. Cable, Satellite, and Netflix are content providers, you are paying them for the content they deliver to the device that you have already paid for. This is more like the company that made your television asking for a 30% cut from your cable company or Netflix for the privilege of delivering content to your television even though you bought it outright and the content delivery happens without any involvement from the TV manufacturer.

None of this should is new. The Times got it wrong. Apple allows apps to use content purchased elsewhere, they just don't allow apps to have in-app purchases that don't go through Apple - it's always been this way. All Sony has to do is place a link to Safari and they'll be all set. This is why the Kindle app is still there.

Funny how the fodder of the anti-Apple trolls is always misinformation.

Nope.

Apple have changed their policy on 11.2

If it were that simple Sony would re-submit and there would be no story.

This really p*sses me off; I thought the App Store was a means to sell more hardware.
Apple, don't be evil.

Ease off. No one has provided proof of this ban. It is possible that the Sony app was rejected because of some security requirement required to use your own system. Apple would want to avoid bad PR due to some other group getting hacked and users of the app that Apple approved being victims (even though it wouldn't really be Apple's fault it would get spun to include them).

Regardless this is some 'sources say' report, not an actual quote from the developers agreement and could just be totally off.

No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.

Hank might have rented the display and display space (the app), but he can't reasonably expect to never pay a cut to the store owner.

Or, it's a bit like you setting up a Coca Cola stand for an event, getting the whole setup with soda fountain and tanks and hoses and illuminated signs and cups and whole nine yards, but then stocking it with your own syrup. Coca Cola allows you to use all their stuff to make money selling concessions, but expects to make money on the syrup in every drink you sell. The user license would not allow you to put Pepsi Cola syrup in the drinks.

Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.

Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.

If you read the NYTimes article it says in app and OUT OF app purchases. Also the screen shot of the app shows what looks to be safari for purchasing.

In your thinking should AT&T get a cut of every purchase? Or if I am on wifi shouldn't comcast get a cut? I mean the data is going over its network, they deserver their share.

Your argument is bull. That would mean Microsoft should get a cut of any software I install on windows.

If you read the NYTimes article it says in app and OUT OF app purchases.

If you have in-app purchasing that bypass Apple system then it will be rejected, period. "Out of" is irrelevant and is just speculated at the moment. There is no concrete evidence pointing this is one of the problem.

If you have in-app purchasing that bypass Apple system then it will be rejected. It's that simple. "Out of" is irrelevant and is just speculated at the moment. There is no concrete evidence pointing this is one of the problem.

Except a screenshot of the Sony E-Reader with the store being visible in safari.

Well done Apple.
Why should Apple allow competition on the iPhone, iPod, and iPads that it MAKES.
A lot of blood sweat and tears (not the song) went into these wonderful devices.
Did the competition do the same, hell NO, they just copied, and very badly.
Then they hate on Apple, try and destroy it, and then cry like little mumma's boys when Apple fights back. Apple wants you as a user and customer to buy books through iBooks, what is wrong with that, tell me ? Why should it allow Amazon and Sony free rein, no way Jose.
,I for one, will only use Apple stuff and their App store, never the competition, more of you so called Apple fans (I doubt if you really are), should do the same.

In times past, people could visit a circus and peruse the freak show with frightened wonder and voyeuristic horror.

These days you can just visit AI and observe the round the twist, barking mad, crazy as a coot, hairy palmed loons dance and cavort with froth and spittle flying in all directions as they voice their rapture at the news the company that has already fleeced them for the their overpriced toys, is further seeking to line it's pockets at their inevitable expense, while simultaneously restricting their free choice in what they can do with the toys they already bought.

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, the next show is about to commence.

Really Apple? Come on. Don't hate on other digital stores. Just innovate. Think different. Lower your revenue sharing for digital content to 25%. Keep working those content deals in favor of the consumer and people will continue buying your hardware and will drive more sales to your digital storefronts. Don't screw this up!!!

If you have in-app purchasing that bypass Apple system then it will be rejected, period. "Out of" is irrelevant and is just speculated at the moment. There is no concrete evidence pointing this is one of the problem.

Quote:

[UPDATE: A representative of Sony's PR company wrote to tell me that the functionality of the rejected iPhone app is "essentially the same" as the Reader app for Android--which, like other companies' iPhone apps, launches a browser for book buying. I hope there's some explanation here other than Apple intentionally changing the rules that other e-reader apps have played by until now. We'll see. Maybe...]

This is a poor analogy. Cable, Satellite, and Netflix are content providers, you are paying them for the content they deliver to the device that you have already paid for. This is more like the company that made your television asking for a 30% cut from your cable company or Netflix for the privilege of delivering content to your television even though you bought it outright and the content delivery happens without any involvement from the TV manufacturer.

Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.

Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.

The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.

You haven't supplied any evidence of that. Nothing in the story indicates that this is anything other than a misunderstanding by the reporter.

Yup, the reporter did not quote Sony directly regarding 'out of app' purchases. The reporters words infered Sony told him that 'out of app' material is no longer usable. However there is the info ASDASD provided. Time will tell.

BTW, still looking for someone to post 11.2 text.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.

Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.

The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.

Rubbish, the rights are agreed between the content providers and the content owners. Not Apple. Apple is skimming for no value.

Is aybody reading the same article I am? They cannot release the app. If they could, they would.

You mean the article where the proof is 'Sony says so'

You can sit there all day and tell us that Apple rejected your app For whatever reason and could lying about even making an app. Why would you do that, cause you enjoy making Apple look bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by depannist

Since Apple isn't talking, as usual, we probably won't know what this means (for Amazon ebooks) until Amazon attempts to release their next update. It would be pretty stupid for Apple to cripple the Kindle app on iOS.

Apple doesn't have to wait. The rule is they can pull whenever they want, if there is cause

Nothing in this thread proves the opposite despite the over-eager defence of Apple.
...

Apple's resounding success with the consumer tells the story better than self-serving pundits partnering with frustrated one-shot wonders Ã* la Sony do. The former has quality written all over it. The latter carries water for hidden agendas.

I do enjoy listening to a good story, especially when I feel like being the central character in its unfolding plot line. Apple carries my own story spanning twenty years of increasing productivity. No Stockholm Syndrome, no Google, no Sony, nor any other free rider for me; in no way would I plead with the truth abuser to grant me facts amnesia in return for subservience and my scamming duplicity.

It comes down to a very simple proposition: you always give the benefit of the doubt to whom has deserved it. Apple scratched my back over the years, I gladly scratch theirs even without 20/20 vision. With all due respect, your "drama queen" soliloquy is to me a non sequitur, and pure Blog entertainment.

Apple's resounding success with the consumer tells the story better than self-serving pundits partnering with frustrated one-shot wonders Ã* la Sony do. The former has quality written all over it. The latter carries water for hidden agendas.

I do enjoy listening to a good story, especially when I feel like being the central character in its unfolding plot line. Apple carries my own story spanning twenty years of increasing productivity. No Stockholm Syndrome, no Google, no Sony, nor any other free rider for me; in no way would I plead with the truth abuser to grant me facts amnesia in return for subservience and my scamming duplicity.

It comes down to a very simple proposition: you always give the benefit of the doubt to whom has deserved it. Apple scratched my back over the years, I gladly scratch theirs even without 20/20 vision. With all due respect, your "drama queen" soliloquy is to me a non sequitur, and pure Blog entertainment.

And yet, Sony remain banned, and cant muster up the engineering talent to just add a link to their ( already designed ) website and remove their in-app version ( if they have one).

I was going to comment on this story, but realized that it's rather pointless since we don't really have any facts about anything involved. I'll just wait till the dust settles and see what's actually going on.

I was going to comment on this story, but realized that it's rather pointless since we don't really have any facts about anything involved. I'll just wait till the dust settles and see what's actually going on.